Conquer Club

Industrial Helix wrote:One options for the mideast would be to make Turkey a colonial power and have its arabian areas as colonies. And I'm pretty sure Egypt went to the British around the 1870s, so if the theme is 1800s, you can pull it off.

Actually, Egypt and Sudan were nominally part of the Ottoman Empire till 1914. Maybe they could have some kind of dual status. It seems a bit weird to include the middle east in a map of colonial Africa, though. Maybe you should just leave it out.

And maybe you should include British and French Somaliland? You are making Italy into a bigger player than they really were.

Alright solution time. I think it's best to just take the Ottomans out of this all together. It's complicating things too much and it's only serving to distract from the main focus of this map. I also tried to reconcile Spain by adding the Canary Islands. That way it can still be at least 3 territories with out fudging history.

Wha-what? I like the Ottomans in there. I makes it a bit more clear that the colonial games wasn't just Europe and it also gives due credit to the Ottomans, whom people just tend to discount as a crappy empire.

Also, what are you going to do with the West Coast of Africa with countries like Togo and Sierra Leone or Guinea-Bissau?

Wha-what? I like the Ottomans in there. I makes it a bit more clear that the colonial games wasn't just Europe and it also gives due credit to the Ottomans, whom people just tend to discount as a crappy empire.

I don't know, It's not a subject I know a lot about. I was a little intimidated by it. I could try and work them back in. Turkey being the capital, and Egypt, Lebanon/syria/Isreal, Arabia, and Yemen as Colonies right? Would that be historically accurate?

Also, what are you going to do with the West Coast of Africa with countries like Togo and Sierra Leone or Guinea-Bissau?

Honestly I was gonna leave them out because, their too small. Maybe combine into one territory or just make an independent west coast bonus, or something. I don't know Leave them out was what I was leaning towards.

Regarding the Ottomans and the general gameplay, here's what I am thinking. Make the colonies not part of any one bonus but part of two or three bonuses, depending on the circumstances. For example, Egypt was an Ottoman territory for most of its recent history until the British nabbed it from them. So give it stripes and let it provide a bonus for either an ottoman or british player.

As for Turkey's 'colonial' past. Everything south of Anatolia was generally regarded to be 'colonies' of Turkey. The Arabs and Egyptians viewed Turkey as a foreign occupier once Nationalism reached the middle east. Persia was never ruled by a foreign power. And the Ottoman Empire had a very strong relationship with eastern Africa, such as importing slaves from Mozambique throughout the 19th century. To ignore Turkey in a Colonial Africa map is a big mistake in my opinion. The only time they were excluded from the continent was the last quarter of the 19th century and after that European rule in Africa didn't last more than 50 years.

As for West Africa, I know what you mean. But you could throw Liberia in as a neutral, which it was, and for the other smaller colonies, perhaps use them as connectors for sea routes along the west african coast? It's pretty much how they evolved.

To be honest, I'd like to see the more independent Africa nations play some sort of role in the map. The Ethiopians beat the Italians a number of times and were only under Italian rule for less than ten years around WWII. Tripoli was a major independent power. The Ashanti and Zulus beat the British a number of times and I know the French met some defeat in West Africa.

The trouble with maps of Colonial Africa is that the map does not portray reality, despite what the British or French cartographers and politicians wanted people to believe. Both then and now.

One possible option would be to do the wars of decolonization, but then you run into trouble with places like Guinea-Bissau being one of the most heavily fought over areas and places like Egypt just being given up. It's kind of why I went for the WWII Africa map because it was the only time in history where the powers actually warred over all the boundries they'd drawn up over the continent.

Industrial Helix wrote:The trouble with maps of Colonial Africa is that the map does not portray reality, despite what the British or French cartographers and politicians wanted people to believe. Both then and now.

In which case it might be worth giving more thought to a hypotethical 'repatriation' war.

This could involve the European nations in your original draft, plus, Brazil, Columbia, Carribbean Islands, USA and maybe Argentina (and I think a few other places near Columbia) as starting positions (i.e. the descendants returning to free Africa from oppression, corruption and civil wars). Starting points could attack strategically selected landing points (in the New World map style) via ships - with the hypothetical nature of the map you could make the landing points wherever gameplay dictates rather than where history dictates.

Industrial Helix wrote:To be honest, I'd like to see the more independent Africa nations play some sort of role in the map.

In this hypothetical map, the African Union peacekeeping force could be respresented, with some kind of bonus system, or as part of an objective (hold the African Union for one turn). Possible other bonuses on the continent could be related to big cities or historiacally significant places (Mount Kilimanjaro, the Cradle of Mankind, the Pyramids etc.). Additionally, a few air bases (neutral starts, possibly killer neutrals) could be placed strategically and be able to attack back to the starting points.

A huge departure from the developments towards a historical map it has to be said. But then again, Rastafarians and the ghost of Marcus Garvey would like the map. Maybe I should do a sketch and set it up as a new idea?

Maybe I should do a sketch and set it up as a new idea?

Yes, what you are talking about is a complete departure from what I am trying to accomplish with this specific map. The only thing they have in common is Africa.

so yeah, if you think that this is a good idea I would suggest pursuing it yourself. I mean it sounds like you have a decent idea.

OK - going back to the colonnial era then - is Britain just linked to its European neighbours or will there be homeland-africa links at all? With the doubling bonus system, some doubles will mbe easier (e.g. Italy) than others if we dont have these links. Not necessarily an issue, but worth thinking about.

Plus, is it worth having the Rivers Nile and Niger as impassables (with strategic bridges if needed)?

Overall, it would be cool to have this map set during the colonnial era, leaving the era of colonisation free to be picked-u

Duplicated post due to fascist laptop !

OK - going back to the colonnial era then - is Britain just linked to its European neighbours or will there be homeland-africa links at all?

Yeah I forgot to draw in the connections. Belgium, France, Spain, and German will all be capable of attacking England. Not entirely sure about connecting the colony to their homelands yet. I was thinking over all No but I was considering 1 connection between England and South Africa.

Sounds like a good idea - otherwise Britain would be impossible to get to - it adds an extra method of getting to europe (although there are always naval options a la Eastern Hemisphere if needed later down the line).

Is there any thought behind those strange borders in eastern europe?
I take it you intend them as playable territories?

Here's a map of Europe in 1890, maybe you could consider making the terits more true to history?

Ok I took your suggestions into consideration IH.

A good thing about adding Turkey as a homeland is that it bumps the # of homelands up to 8. Therefore in an 8 player game we can set it so that everyone starts out with at least 1 homeland.

oh... for some reason I guess I didn't save the changes to Spain last time. Just pretend it was how it was in the last post and I'll add it back in next post.

You forgot to have Egypt striped in the mini map.

Victor Sullivan wrote:You forgot to have Egypt striped in the mini map.

I am SOOO far from even pretending like these represent the final graphics. Just trying to iron out the fundamentals before I draw up a map I'll have to change a shit ton.

Ok guy's I think it's about time to dig this one back up. I'll get seriously started on this once again, when one or both of my Beta maps get quenched.

Sweet beans. I say go for it.

the map looks fine. also 8 starting positions as European countries (+Turkey) sounds good.

btw, for DJ Teflon - my quick attempt about theme you like viewtopic.php?f=63&t=112743

Ok, so the emergence of another Colonial Africa Thread has encouraged me to get serious about this map. Here you can see I updated this with territory names. I also added impassables and rearranged territories a bit.

I left the part of the West coast (wort of the Gold Coast Area) unlabeled because I'm still debating how to handle that region.

I could either

-just give it France (historically inaccurate, but simplified)

-Give Portugal, Spain, Britain, and Germany a single territory along the coast but give them no bonus value.

-Do the above but assign it a group bonus value independent of Colonial Powers

-I could give each Colonial power a territory along the coast that connects to the homeland.


(ALSO for now I'm just going to work with these crummy graphics so that I can change things around easier. The real graphics will come much later)

Ah man, i know I was supposed to help with this but I work like 60 hours a week lately and haven't had the time.

Anyway, here's my philosophy with making a historical map: You want a player to have some freedom in a historical map to play with the historical maybes and what ifs, and not to get stuck on strict historical template of a time period. At the same time, you don't want to delve into historical fantasy. So its a dangerous balance. Also, you need to have an ideal setting and round... when will this map reflect the historical situation you are portraying? I do all my maps presuming flat or no spoils and the bonuses are tooled to influence a player to re-create something close to the historical states depicted... for example, France is rather easily defended thus making France a player, as she was, during the German Wars of Unification. Her bonus value also reflects her power during the wars.. so essentially a player won't win on France alone, she needs to play aggressive inside Germany proper to win (thus doing the opposite of France's historical mistake).

All in all, I'd say you've got a good start and it won't be much to get it where it needs to be.

I like how the bonus system works, though really, I think there ought to be a sort of duel colony option for some of the places that changed hands, much like you've used with Egypt. Places like the German colonies could be duel colonies with Britain, Cameroon with France. This way, it gives a player to sort of build a little more like piece by piece and grow his empire. It also inclines players to desire Britain and France as there are more options available. This makes sense because Britain and France dominated the continent.

Ideally, you want Europe to be static and the conflict and movement to primarily occur in Africa... given its ability to yield easy and quick bonuses, I'd say you'll achieve this pretty easily. Though I'd recommend the European powers and Turkey be starting positions and deploy higher, say 5, to encourage static gameplay up north. It will be a good and true to history dynamic to have Europe concerned about the balance between continental and colonial obligations. You'll get some cool World War scenarios where if Germany knocks out France and France strikes back from her colonies, ect. I hope this map will be considered for WWI and WWII tournaments as well.

The only major gameplay element that I think you ought to add is a European one way attack on at least one of their major colonies. I'm thinking Britain to SA, Germany to German East Africa, Belgium to Congo, and Portugal to Angola. This way you get the Europeans able to land and conquer Africa, but Africans stuck in Africa... true to history and also makes some of the more harder to achieve bonuses, such as Portugal, easier to achieve. Maybe, even consider killer neutral ocean territories, giving European players a chance to make landings, ect. In fact, I think killer neutral sea territories would really liven up the gameplay.

Britain
And here's a list of some revisions you ought to consider:
Put in Zululand instead of Basutoland
Bechuanaland was South Rhodesisa.
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan ought to be one colony, as it was, and keep the duality.
There's better names for North and South Nigeria... but I'm at a loss... stay tuned.

France
You've got to put in the modern Algeria and call it Algeria... it was considered part of France proper and the primary French colony... scoot Tunisia to its place.
Equatorial Africa ought to be a duel colony with Germany... it was traded for Germany being ok with French Morocco.

Spain, Portugal, germany and Italy look ok save for their names.

Belgium might need a little more easily defended African territory, their weakness is their continental position.

For the two African neutrals... you might want to consider a duel bonus that only rewards with Italy and Italian Horn of Africa with Ethiopia and France with French Africa and Morocco.

The European neutrals... I don't like them. I'd be in favor of ditching them completely and bordering Italy with Germany. Turkey's threats came via through its colonies (WWI Mesopotamia and Palestine) and not through land attacks in itself (Salonika and Gallipoli). Given Turkey's proximity to Africa, I'd say there is sufficient threat to its power without bordering the European powers via the continent.

As for West Africa... I think you ought to add it in and put the labels in the sea. Guinea-Bissau, Gold Coast (especially with the Asanti wars there), Gold Coast, Ivory Coast... these would make great neutral starters and +1 bonuses. This reflects their richness in resources though precarious defensive position. It also makes a great way to increase a player's bonus a little by a quick land grab.

Lastly... impassables. I'd say increase them.

agreed with most of Helix´s notices.

and here some my ideas:
1, give more "grey" areas to Africa. if this map is from early 1800 there were much more independent (not colonised areas as desert, jungle).
2, to the 1879 was Ottamans in Egypt and in Libya. they never hold Arabia, just Yemen, part of Oman and only stripe on the west coast of Arabia from Palestine to Yemen. also they lost Balkans only in 1879. so Ottomans could have bonus for Asia as now, maybe with Balkans (or +1 for Balkans), and bonus for African colonies (which could be overlap bonuses - Egypt for England, Libya for Italy)
3, I like Helix´s idea about Europe as players base.

also I like your idea about double bonus with European homeland, but there is needed to pulish routes to Europe, I think.

look here http://www.brazza.culture.fr/en/afrique ... varch1.htm

To Industrial Helix- I read through your novel last night and you have a lot of great suggestions. I'm going probably going to be too busy most of the weekend to give a proper response so stay tuned. I definitely like the idea of adding more split bonuses and European 1 way attacks.

To The Bastard- I think you're placing the map a little earlier than it really is. This will actually be circa 1914.

[quote="The Bison King"
To The Bastard- I think you're placing the map a little earlier than it really is. This will actually be circa 1914.[/quote]

hm, I though that you have meant era from 1800´s. than it changes things... I will look at this from another view

Take your time, but just as fair warning... you're going to have to have a solid idea of the gameplay before it moves on the gameplay workshop as I want to keep an eye on the development.

Also, have you given any thought to graphics yet?